I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

It doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii. His father was not a citizen and therefore, Barry, is not a natural born citizen. He needs to have 2 parents that were citizens of the USofA to be eligible to be the POTUS!

Why not super-glue him to SOME piece of vital document, anything. He always distances himself from any vital documents. They're "posted" by "someone", but the usurper won't say "this is my document" and hand it to any court.

Challenge him that he's both not a natural born citizen (because his dad was never a US Citizen) AND that he's not proven he's 35 years old either.

He cannot produce one shred of paper to even prove who he is and how old he is.

The dumbots would choke on their tongues that he would be challenged as not being 35 years old. "Of course he is!" "OK then prove it!"

Obama has been very fortunate that the state of Hawaii has backed him up throughout both a Republican and a Democratic administration. That has scared the courts and the Congress off from challenging him too hard.Because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, it makes it very difficult to challenge Hawaii's rulings and statements.http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

@Anonymous"Any decision that the Supremes would make or any other court would make would absolutely depend on whether or not the birth document long form is authentic [and not a forgery].

You can't make a decision on a JPG or a PDF or any other type of 'copy', certified or not.

A complete and thorough forensic examination of the original long form must be made. This fact is the 100 ton elephant that sits in our collective living rooms.

Short of that, the courts have NO idea who BHO is. And for what its worth, currently, no one knows who he is. "BHO" may not know who he is."---The laws of the state of Hawaii do not allow for the release of the original document to anybody, ever. The best that can be hoped for is a certified COPY of the original to be released under an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.Even the judge in Georgia last week said that he has no power to make Hawaii release a document of that state. Hawaii has rejected every attempt to get the original birth certificate as a violation of their state law, certified copies ONLY.

Hell, Martha Trowbridge, at her Terrible Truth blog, has revealed far more compelling evidence to suggest that the SOB usurper is actually the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. In her latest piece, she slams the "virtual interview" of this illegal piece of trash that occurred after his State of the Disunion speech as reflective of nightmarish bullshit he has been feeding us: http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/gimme-something-real-mario-apuzzo-on-the-jeff-rense-program-tonight/

"Then why didn't he [or his attorney] bring in the Hawaii documentation, the long form?

Because it's a clear forgery.January 30, 2012 8:55 PM"++++++++++Exactly..!!! What could be more obvious! Its a forgery and they all know it.

I really wonder how Judge Mahili can ethically make any decision with this dark cloud of authenticity hanging over the issue of the LFBC. If he does make a recommendation [either way], he's doing so totally in the blind.

Leo has nailed what many of us have been saying all along: words really do mean something. This was especially true to the Founders who did not willy-nilly place superfluous words into our founding document over which they carefully deliberated for many months. If our Constitution states that our President must be a "natural born Citizen," it is clear that the Founders meant the requirement to be more restrictive than just simply being born a citizen. Obviously the qualifier "natural" adds a further important something or the Founders would have simply written "born Citizen."

If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid, a half-breed mix that is neither completely donkey nor horse and is sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone a donkey or a horse). I submit to the reader that, politically, our Founders would have considered Obama to be just such a jackass.

By examining the writings of the Founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Obama, by his own admission, was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the Founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.

When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That is the clear and obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase "natural born." To produce a Citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident Citizens. This was the Founders' understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." -Galileo

IN JFK’S OWN WORDS HE IS TRYING TO WARN THE U.S. ABOUT A MONOLITHIC & RUTHLESS CONSPIRACY AROUND THE WORLD WHERE HE ASKED THE MEDIA TO HELP ALERT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE MEDIA DID NOT ALERT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE EVIL CONTINUES!!!

JFK "The President and the Press," before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, 27 April 1961

The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a "natural born citizen" according to the Constitution of the USA. The term "natural born citizen" has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:1) Obama must be born in the USA.Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!

---Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for those interested:--"Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator - Official Proof 1 ( Layers )" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY--"Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony" at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/ --"Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery" at http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324153/ --See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684--See evidence that Obama is using a Social Security Number (SSN) 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him but to someone else (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

---Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii to check it directly. In particular, it is indispensable to assess if even this original long form birth certificate in Hawaii is truly genuine that is if it is not also a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama might never have been born in Hawaii!!!

2) Obama's parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.We know that Obama's father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

CONCLUSION:---Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!---Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!---THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

DEFINITION OF A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN":If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a "natural born citizen" truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo's web site "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers" at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ IN PARTICULAR, MAKE SURE YOU READ:---"The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth" at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

Let's take the election ballot.In order to be put on the ballot, he must be certified by the Secretary of State. S/He gets that from the DNC. The DNC is required to verify he is eligible. If he does not show them, and they say he is and someone questions THEM to show proof, then they must comply. This means you probably have to file suit against the Secretary of State to show proof.If the Secretary of State does not have evidence and certifies, then the Secretary of State can get in legal trouble. I say, file for the Secretary of State to show proof for certification because if they cannot produce it, you won't have to do anything else. The Secretary of State therefore cannot certify it and thus he cannot be on the ballot. If one state can do that, then the others can follow.

An original long-form birth certificate, not a copy or a jpg or a COLB, provides evidence of what the candidate says is true, is true. It should be made available to the plaintiff to have an expert verify it is not a forgery. If this cannot be produced, then the Secretary of State cannot truly verify the candidate meets the eligibility requirements and thus his name cannot be placed on the ballot.

IF, the Secretary of State argues she does not have to have proof, then I would make a motion that ALL laws are not required to be verifiable, if one is not and thus, all laws are not enforceable because they do not have any value since evidence is therefore not required to comply with the law. So, the next speeding ticket I get, I will use this as a basis for my defense. I'll just say, "I saw I wasn't speeding. So, if it's good enough for Bozo, it's good enough for the rest of us, otherwise, the judge will set precedent that since I have to show proof, evidence is therefore a requirement and that can be used against Bozo.

In a perfect world, all people would be honest. This would be a world in which Liberals do not exist.

If born in America was all that was required to be eligible to run for the presidency any American born terrorist's son (foreign plant) has a shot at controlling/trashing the most powerful nation in the world- Not the intentions of the framers. Of course he would has to hide all of his past and have the media covering for him too.

I agree with the comment about what faces voters, especially Florida voters, I will of course vote for romney, if he is the choice, but it won't make me happy. He will never confront a word of this, UNLESS we actually succeed in exposing the criminal fraud of obama.

Judge Malihi gave me a leave of court to petition the Superior court for Letters Rogatory to the Circuit Court of HI seeking local subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy attached to 01.25.2012 letter from Jablonski

Anonymous (9:33)Back in the 60's when an American woman married an alien she EXPATRIATED and this is in the INS laws...

so Obama was just born British, only a British citizen, never was born an American at all-------------------------------------------------------------"From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922." - Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b)

Even if the losing citizenship when marrying an alien ended in 1922, obviously before that a woman who got married to an alien no longer was a US Citizen, so the intent of even EARLIER than that, the founders, was certainly not for there to be only 1 US citizen parent.

Judge Malihi gave me a leave of court to petition the Superior court for Letters Rogatory to the Circuit Court of HI seeking local subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy attached to 01.25.2012 letter from Jablonski"

Yet another blatant lie from Orly. Judge Malini did not give her leave, number one because he can't, number two because that's not what he told her. What he told her was she's free to do whatever she wants... her choice.

What Ms. Beal, his legal assistant told Orly was... "Judge Malihi instructed that you should feel free to petition the Superior Court, if you so choose."

Sure, feel free to do whatever you wish. That is not "granting leave" to do anything or not to do anything.

It's going to be fun to watch, as she has no clue how to go about what she's about to attempt, and which will not matter one whit, even if by some miracle she obtained them, as she still will not get what she's asking for from HI, because of their law saying otherwise, and nothing GA state court can do or say will change that or force them to do what their law says they can not.

More wasted time and donors' money for nothing... which she does a awful lot of.

Anyone BORN her is NOT a citizen. A citizen is born to parents someone that hold no allegiance to any foreign power!

The Civil RIghts Act of 1866 says:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

If Congress believes the NBC clause does not mean 2 parents that are citizens why have they tried 8 times since 2003 to change it? They just can not have it both ways! Oh I forgot, yes they can. They can do whatever, say what ever, anything they want at the moment is what they shall get.

Pastor Carl GallupsLINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLEhttp://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/163

LIVE LINKS TO EACH HJR and SENATE RESOLUTIONhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S2128:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:

Even if the losing citizenship when marrying an alien ended in 1922, obviously before that a woman who got married to an alien no longer was a US Citizen, so the intent of even EARLIER than that, the founders, was certainly not for there to be only 1 US citizen parent."

Not true. The mere act of a woman marrying an alien prior to 1922 did not expatriate the woman.

marriage to an alien before March 2, 1907, did not result in expatriation unless, prior to September 22, 1922, the wife emigrated to the country of the husband's nationality, acquired citizenship thereof under its laws by virtue of the marriage, and such country was signatory to a treaty with the United States under which each country agreed to recognize its own nationals as citizens of the other upon naturalization therein pursuant to the laws thereof.

@Charlene. You should read your own links, which didn't work BTW. I looked them up on the website. They Resolutions you listed, with the exception 2678 and 2128, said nothing of parents or location of birth, only saying that once a person is a citizen and has resided in the US for either 20 or 35 years, would qualify to be president.

2128 Proposed a change to define NBC as anyone born in US, anyone born outside US to at least one US citizen or pursuant to Act of Congress, and anyone adopted by age 18 by US citizen.

2678 Proposed a change to include the child of any US citizen serving either active or inactive in the Armed Forces, regardless of location of birth.

Anon@5:23When they attempted the Resolutions the purpose was to change the requirements. In my opinion, any change made would be to confuse the proper meaning. That is how they have been doing whatever they want. Confuse the issue and reinterpet. Thank you for pointing out the fact that not all attempts were directly and outright changes to definition of NBC, but I still believe the outcome would have been the same.

One is no an automatic citizen just by beingborn in America. If relying on fourteenthamendment citizenship one must qualify underthe complete clause,(and subject to the jurisdiction thereof), meaning one must beborn of parents owing no other allegianceto another country. The true intent was togrant,or acknowledge the citizenship of justemancipated slaves

In the case of "wong kim ark" the judge'sdecision was convoluted and intentionallyerroneous presumably for the purpose ofsomehow helping to legitimize chesterarthur, when it was learned his fatherwas a canadian citizen.

Don't you think its strange that all of the "effin" demoncrats in our house and senate are QUITE now?? THEY ALL NEED VOTED OUT and replaced with AMERICANS that ARE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! All of them that is 65+ KNOW what the news was in 1961. I REMEMBER!!!

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.